Polytheism – the only logical position (A modern definition).

29 May

The term Polytheism is a term that for many conjures up images of a belief system that may / should be consigned to history. In a world where monotheism has provided various frames of reference that stipulates that the top of any otherworld hierarchial system must, by default, be the ultimate in “power” and therefore should be the only “true” way, is one that for many, is no longer applicable.

The actions and the internal power bases of these religious frameworks documented throughout recorded history point to widespread failings in both interpretation and direction. These failings have led to death on scales that only major natural disasters compare to. Without wanting to apportion any sort of blame here, which is neither my intention nor interest, I am going to document why I have been led to the conclusion that Polytheism is the only logical position for me to hold in regard to otherworld interpretation.

As is documented on this site, I take an interest in the latest scientific advances and discourses. The modern scientific age is one that has, through various channels and circumstances, led to an understanding in the natural world that is demonstrable beyond the intuitive. This has led to advances in technology which take our interactions with this planet and all the processes present herein and beyond, to an altogether new level. Some of these advances are being made on the backs of theoretical models that cannot work without major rethinks into the reality of existence.

One such example is Quantum Computing. The principles of how this works is one that even within my lifetime, would have been dismissed as fanciful and based in imagination and yet, we now find that the possibility for such a machine and the idea that a position or particle could exist in a minimum of two states simultaneously, enforces the position that our perception of the physical realm we exist in is not the actual totality of that existence.

This may lead one to re-evaluate the nature of their interactions, with areas of existence that were previously based purely on intuitive perspectives, now being moved into theoretical scientific areas. Of course, any scientist for whom his / she’s livelihood depends upon these areas, steers well clear of any theological interpretations because these interpretations are difficult to qualify and therefore moves their work out of the measurable and (primarily) observable.

So, with the rise of theoretical models used to generate the evolution of technology, the changing nature of existence continues to be shown and demonstrated to us. This evidence then challenges us to reconsider our belief’s about the nature of this existence.

If we are fortunate enough to read what may be considered good quality literature about these scientific subjects, hopefully written by individuals in a position to write authoratively, then it becomes clear that the case for different realms of existence is now much stronger, whether these realms are described as alternative or many universes / worlds or whatever the current scientific language deems appropriate at this time.

The probability of such realms actually existing has now moved from the restrictions of questionable religious frameworks into the more open environment of the scientific disciplines. It would appear that the majority of current scientists now implicitly recognize the existence of realms not previously evidenced beyond the historically dubious writings of some religions. The weight of evidence is moving to strengthen the case for the existence of realms of reality that, although not sharing exactly the conditions we currently live in, never the less by their speculated existence, don’t violate the commonly held laws of nature evidenced throughout our own universe.

If the conditions needed to accommodate the creation and substinance of such alternative realms / universes are indeed universal, then the weight of probability would suggest that the possibility of different forms of life existing there would be strong. Their conditions of existence would be different from ours simply because their environment would dictate how they would experience their lives. Therefore, their experiences may share some commonality to us, but in some instances may be completely different.

The closer the environmental conditions to our own universe, the closer the potential commonality between any potential life forms. Therefore, it occurs to me, that the only question is whether the individual has, through personal or reasoned discourse, experienced any interactions with other potential life forms. The more that these theoretical scientific ideas are shown to be grounded in a reality that may be used for, say, technological evolution, the greater the probability that other forms of environments condusive to some form of life, may actually be based in reality.

These environments will be proven by scientific methods and as such, their consequences may be assessed scientifically thus taking some of the interpretations of these interactions away from some of the unproven religious conjecture evidenced elsewhere.

Therefore, if we accept that the potential for the existence of different “other-world” realms is increasing with scientific discourse, then using the model of life evidenced on Earth, it would be entirely consistent to assume that any or all life existing in these other realms would not be restricted to just one interpretation or example. Speaking personally, this is the strongest reason why I rejected the monotheistic model. I cannot think of any situation where life has occurred that has resulted in just one interpretation. It goes against the regenerative nature of life evidenced here on Earth. Therefore, if one places the notion of a God into another realm of existence, the model of life presented to us implies that this example of another independent life form would not stop at just one example. I would suggest that it would be a more reasonable position to assume that there would be more than one example or individual.

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 29, 2010 in Cosmological Worldview


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: